By Kevin Bjornson, National Co-Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus.


To understand recent world events, we should first
put them in context of world pre-history and history.
Then we can understand how ancient libertarianism
developed and it’s foundation.

These are the three most important early developments:
–”…a new study of the 1967 fossil site indicates the
earliest known members of our species, Homo sapiens,
roamed Africa about 195,000 years ago.” (1.)
–”The beginning of agriculture around 10 000 years ago
has repeatedly been seen as the major transition in the
human past, a change over from the natural environment
in control of humans, to humans in control of the natural
environment. Before agriculture, humans were hunter-
gatherers, dependent on wild resources for their nutritional
requirements, which led to a largely nomadic lifestyle
dictated by the annual cycle of animal and plant availability.” (2.)

–institution of the roman republic about 509 BC,
with the overthrow of the monarchy and creation of the
Twelve Tablets of Rome (the supreme constitution
of the world).

Origin of Government

The Paleolithic period (or “Estate of Nature” or
“Garden of Eden”) was based on hunting-gathering.
In the Neolithic period, agriculture enabled stored wealth
for the first time. This led to the evolution of government
from gangs of thieves:
“As agriculture became more and more widespread,
people began to accumulate surpluses of food,
meaning that a single family grew more than it consumed.
At the same time, the increasing tendency to remain in a
single location put pressure on groups to protect
themselves from other still nomadic peoples.”

“Government” is the organization of force to regulate
or control human behavior. If an individual thief tried
to steal this stored wealth, he would be confronted by
the farmer-owner, his family and friends. We must
therefore conclude that some nomadic tribes operated
as gangs, organizing force to steal. To counter this,
creators of stored wealth organized force in protection of
life, liberty and property.

This is the real “social contract” whereby individuals hire
government “guard dogs” to protect from government
“wolf packs”. We may suppose that protective government
evolved from predatory gov’t, in like manner that guard
dogs evolved from wolves. Because the notion of
protection presupposes a threat.

Let us contrast Locke with Hobbes:
Locke: “Men living together according to reason without
a common superior on earth, with authority to judge
between them, is properly the state of Nature.
But force, or a declared design of force upon the
person of another, where there is no common superior
on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war…”
Hobbes:“Hereby it is manifest, that during the time men 
live without a common Power to keep them all in awe, 
they are in that condition which is called Warre; 
and such a warre, as is of every man, against every man.” 

Locke was correct in supposing that society created
government; government didn’t create society.

Hobbes assumed without evidence that the Paleolithic
period was characterized by a “war of all against all”.
However hunting-gathering provides neither incentive
nor means for organized warfare. Because without
stored wealth, there is little to steal, nor the ability to
organize force to steal. The concept “war” presupposes
war between governments, hence by definition, there was
no organized war in the estate of nature.

Meaning of “Government”

This means, contra Locke, that illegitimate governments
arose before legitimate governments. Locke’s viewpoint
does not exclude the possibility of illegitimate governments,
but he views legitimate government as the archetype and this
implies illegitimate governments are aberrations not the norm.

Conversely, “anarcho-capitalists” imagine that their proposed
agencies of defensive/retaliatory force would not be governments.
In their view, by definition all governing actions initiate force and
cannot defend or retaliate against initiations of force.

Roy Childs: “Why is a limited government a floating abstraction?
Because it must either initiate force or stop being a government.”

However, dictionaries do not agree that governments necessarily
initiate force. To “govern” means to rule over by right of authority.
However, opinions may differ on what constitutes rightful authority.

The synonym “rule” makes the meaning more clear,
“to exercise control, dominion, or direction over; govern”.
When force is organized by government and used in retaliation
or defense, that also constitutes governing or ruling.
Tibor Machan: “Within libertarianism, though, the
concept ‘government’ is still unstable. Anarcho-libertarians,
who argue for something they dub ‘competing legal systems’
or ‘competing defense organizations,’ claim that the concept
‘government’ means, essentially, ‘a monopoly of legal services
over a given territory.’ This isn’t as clear cut as one might wish.”

“In my own view, for example, the institutions anarcho-libertarians
support are governments in every important respect–they are
administrators, maintainers, and protectors of bona fide law within
human communities. What critics claim is that such administration,
maintenance and protection do not require contiguous spheres of
jurisdiction but could work as a sort of crisscross system.” (

Nations traditionally have been organized around territory or
ethnicity. However modernity has made the world transparent
and open to movement. The internet has enabled organization
based on ideas, much more so than the Gutenburg press.

“Intervention” and “Aggression”

Another area in which “anarcho-capitalists” are confused,
is their conflation of non-intervention (militarily) and

To “intervene” simply means, a party joins a dispute,
siding with one party over another. To intervene on behalf
of the aggressor, is aggression. To intervene on behalf of
the victim, is not aggression. Because there can be only
one initiation of force in a conflict, the initial aggressor
and an intervenor against the aggressor cannot both
initiate force. Because by definition, there can be only one
first strike.

This confusion can be traced to a medieval misinterpretation
of Jus Naturale:
Maine: “No passage has ever been adduced from the remains of
Roman law which, in my judgment, proves the jurisconsults
to have believed natural law to have obligatory force between
independent commonwealths; and we cannot but see that to
citizens of the Roman empire who regarded their sovereign’s
dominions as conterminous with civilisation, the equal subjection
of states to the Law of Nature, if contemplated at all, [would]
have seemed at most an extreme result of curious speculation.

“If the society of nations is governed by Natural Law,
the atoms which compose it must be absolutely equal.
Men under the sceptre of Nature are all equal, and
accordingly commonwealths are equal if the international
state be one of nature.”

“Acquisition of territory has always been the great spur of
national ambition, and the rules which govern this acquisition,
together with the rules which moderate the wars in which it
too frequently results, are merely transcribed from the part
of the Roman law which treats of the modes of acquiring
property ‘jure gentium’.

“They thus made their way into the modern Law of Nations,
and the result is that those parts of the international system
which refer to dominion, its nature, its limitations, the modes
of acquiring and securing it, are pure Roman Property Law –”

“In order that these chapters of International Law may be
capable of application, it is necessary that sovereigns should
be related to each other like the members of a group of Roman
proprietors. This is another of the postulates which lie at the
threshold of the International Code, and it is also one which
could not possibly have been subscribed to during the first
centuries of modern European history.. It is resolvable into
the double proposition that ‘sovereignty is territorial,’ i.e.
that it is always associated with the proprietorship of a limited
portion of the earth’s surface, and that ‘sovereigns inter se are
to be deemed not paramount, but absolute, owners of the
state’s territory.’” (

Rulers are governed by natural law, like all other natural persons.
But they do not own all the real estate within their dominion,
hence do not have a moral shield against intervention (between
the ruler and the ruled), whether by invasion, revolution, or
civil war.

“A priori” and empirical induction

People generally tend to be skeptical of “a priori” speculation,
and prefer to see examples. Though, often “libertarians” try to
define liberty deductively, from axioms. We may trace
“competing governments” theory to the common law system
of the roman republic; and this is more useful than trying to
re-invent the wheel with “anarcho-capitalism”.

Deduction from axioms is one side of the coin. The other side
is empirical and inductive. Ancient libertarianism began as a
synthesis of the two. We see this exemplified when Rome
conquered Athens.
Henry Maine: “It is notorious that this proposition —
live according to nature — was the sum of the tenets of the
famous Stoic philosophy. Now on the subjugation of Greece
that philosophy made instantaneous progress in Roman society.”
…The alliance of the lawyers with the Stoic philosophers lasted
through many centuries.” (

Prior to this, the roman republic began a common law system
they called “Jus Gentium” (or law of all nations). This was
merchant law, because it pertained to international trade,
and disputes that arose therefrom. Merchants from different
city-states sometimes had disputes, and they resolved the
question of what set of laws to apply by resorting to common
law. Though this method should be applied to all areas of law.
Henry Maine translates and quotes the Institutional Treatise
published under the authority of the Emperor Justinian:
“All nations who are ruled by laws and customs, are governed
partly by their own particular laws, and partly by those laws which
are common to all mankind. The law which a people enacts is called
the Civil Law of that people, but that which natural reason appoints
for all mankind is called the Law of Nations, because all nations use it.”

Maine explains: “Jus Gentium was, in fact, the sum of the common
ingredients in the customs of the old Italian tribes, for they were
all the nations whom the Romans had the means of observing…”

The Latin “Jus Gentium” or the law in common to all nations
(derived inductively), was objective in the sense of a property
of human nature and not derivative of contracts. Though
politically, we must evaluate all human actions that do not initiate
force, as if they were subjective. This resolves the seeming
contradiction between Austrian economics and “objectivism”.

The Stoic philosophy was to live in accord with nature,
keeping a balance or golden mean; the political aspect
was the principle of equity and equal rights (this was the
bridge to “Jus Gentium”).

By extracting the elements in common to all law codes,
the Romans did not intend “a priori” to arrive at the
non-aggression principle. That is good, because
well-intentioned people can come up with all kinds
of axioms which they presume to be self-evident,
and through pure logic arrive at a “reductio ad absurdum”.

Jus Gentium arrived at an approximation of the
non-aggression principle by analyzing examples
of all law codes, extracting what they all have in common.
All legal systems generally prohibit murder, robbery, and rape
(forcible initiation of force upon another natural person).
Though governments make exceptions for government
employees, we should apply the same logic to all
natural persons (“AEquitas” in Latin, “equity” in English).

Thus by applying the logic of equity to common law,
we arrive at knowledge of natural law, including the
non-initiation-of-force principle (i.e. liberty principle).
This natural law reigns supreme–applying to all
natural persons, in all places, and for all time.

Failure to live in accord with this natural justice will
result in automatic punishment from nature, as surely
as a poor diet and lifestyle will diminish lifespan.

Sharia law is in direct opposition to natural law,
and the world must choose between them.

Decline of the West–then and now

When the western roman empire fell, the eastern
continued for another 1000 years. The EU, and it’s
partner the US, are collapsing–economically,
politically, and demographically. Russian law must
be reformed in accord with “Jus Naturale” and then
will be able to preserve civilization in the dark
ages that might come. This will create hope and
purpose for the future, inspiring population increase.

Russia is a rightful heir to the eastern roman republic.
If Russia enabled a Kurdistan protectorate in eastern Turkey,
that would give Russia a land route from Armenia all the way
to the Mediterranean. Russia should negotiate military transit
privileges through Georgia, and the US should negotiate
military transit privileges through Armenia. Greece should
reprise the Iliad, and reverse the Islamist conquest of

The US and the West are wrong to back an Islamic Turkey,
now as they were in the Crimean War. Similarly the West
backed the wrong side in Serbia and Afghanistan. Once the
Iran domination of Syria ends, Russia should assume a
leading role there.

Russia has a moral duty to prevent the rise of the Sunni
Caliphate and Shia nukes, and thus must resist the efforts
of Erdogan and the mullahs in Iran. That is because Obama
has further bankrupted the US. Pax Americana will go the
way of Pax Britannica and Pax Romana.

A good replacement is needed to avert a new Dark Ages,
the UN is manifestly unsuited to the task for multiple reasons.

Instead of siding with Shia Iran against the Sunni Caliphate,
and Obama backing whichever side seems trendy– Russia
and the US should unite against both the Sunni caliphate and
Shia nukes.

The western and eastern fragments of the republic must unite
in a co-dominion, changing their policies to form a humanistic
alliance against theocracy.

1. McDougall, I.; Brown, F.; & Fleagle, J.; (2005)
“Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia”
Nature, Thursday Feb. 17, 2005
2. Brown, T.; Jones, M.; Powell, W.; and Allaby, R. (2008)
“The complex origins of domesticated crops in the Fertile Crescent”
Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 10-29
3. Wikibooks (2013)
“Civilization Makes it’s Debut” in
World History/Ancient Civilizations
4. Locke, J.; (1690)
“Of the State of War”
Second Treatise of Civil Government Chapter III Section 19
5. Hobbes, T.; (1660)
“Of The Naturall Condition Of Mankind, As Concerning Their Felicity, And Misery”
Leviathan, Chapter 13
6. Childs, R.; (1969)
“An Open Letter to Ayn Rand: Objectivism and the State”
The Rational Individualist, August 1969
7. Machan, T.; (2004)
“‘Government’ vs. ‘State’”
Strike the Root, March 13, 2004
8. Maine, H.: (1861)
“The Modern History of the Law of Nature”
Ancient Law, chapter four
9. Maine, H.: (1861)
“The Law of Nature and Equity”
Ancient Law, chapter three
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.

‘World History and the Role of Russia; from a classical libertarian perspective’ was originally published in the Russian language academic journal  “Modern Scientific Thought”. 

It is reprinted with permission here.

Modern Scientific Thought’ may be accessed here

A profound thank you to Dr. Igor Suzdaltsev, Editor-in-Chief of ‘Modern Scientific Thought’, for his invaluable contribution to the publication of this article and to the cause of liberty.

Here is a link to his book’Natiology’

Posted by: irishhawk | December 4, 2012

A Time for Choosing

By Kevin Bjornson
National Co – Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus

Previously I have suggested that Israel depose the
Syrian regime (but not nation-build a new one),
on the way to retrieving Saddam’s WMD in Bekaa,
thence to attacking Hezb (in S. Lebanon)
from their North (a less protected direction) while
blocking escape routes through Beirut. The logic was,
sooner or later Israel would have to attack Iran over
the nuclear issue, Iran would retaliate through it’s
proxies in Syria and S. Lebanon, so those should
be neutralized beforehand.

Recent developments have rendered my previous advice obsolete.
Now that Muslim factions are fighting each other in Syria, neither
Israel nor the US nor NATO should intervene. When enemies
fight each other, best to stay out of the way. Also, Gaza has
emerged as a more serious threat, so should be neutralized
prior to deposing the Iran regime.

Humanistic liberals are a small faction of the Muslim world,
almost non-existent. Certainly they have no political influence.
Bringing democracy to an enraged ignorant belligerent mob
does not bring improvement.

Ghadaffi should not have been overthrown. He was reforming,
paid reparations for his past terrorism, gave up his WMD,
stopped his nuclear program and allowed inspectors in.

As people approach the good, they should be rewarded
for their improvements, instead of being punished for
their continuously-diminishing shortcomings. Now,
terrorists roam Libya freely, seizing weapons and
assassinating US diplomats.

In Egypt, the transition to mob rule occurred democratically,
but the end result is similar. The new Egyptian rulers have
indirectly repudiated the peace treaty with Israel, and are
playing a deception game in order to receive desperately
needed foreign aid.

Generally foreign aid should be stopped,
especially to enemies. Israel would be within it’s rights to
re-take Sinai, and at some point this may have to be done.
If Egypt attacks Israel, the high Aswan Dam could easily
be taken out with a single bunker-busting missile. That
should keep them busy, while Israel re-takes Sinai.

To prevent Syria’s WMD from falling into the hands of Al Qaeda,
perhaps the stockpiles should be destroyed from the air.
The situation should be monitored closely and a decision
to intervene should take current facts into account.

Still the problem of Iran building nukes remains.
Suppose that by some miracle, Israel gets big enough
bunker busters and large enough aircraft to deliver them.
Further suppose that Iran’s nuclear facilities were destroyed 100%.
Still, so long as the regime and it’s nationalized oil infrastructure
remain, they will simply rebuild and in more secure facilities.

Now suppose that the attack only partially destroyed Iran’s
nuclear facilities and set back their program by a few years.
Further suppose that Iran no longer received money from
nationalized oil. In this case, the regime would quickly fall.
Likely a new government would be less threatening,
but even if they had the worst intentions they would still
lack the means to carry them out. Because the nuclear
program is very expensive, and so is maintaining the regime.

The Iran regime could quickly be disabled by a simple
attack on their oil export facilities. After all, the purpose
of the (leaking) sanctions is to prevent Iran from selling oil.
However Obama has granted so many exemptions,
Iran is still able to sell, albeit at reduced levels with
increased costs. This is enough to hurt the regime,
but has not affected their production of the fissionable
materials. The objective of the sanctions could  easily
and completely be achieved, by a few missiles directed
at their oil terminals, which cannot be buried beyond
reach of existing bunker-busting bombs.

If Iran escalates by sending chemical/biological tipped
missiles, Israel should retaliate with nuclear bursts at
high altitude, which would disable Iran’s electrical power
grid. This would prevent them from building anything
beyond 19th century technology.

Survival of Israel and western civilization is at stake.
Two decisions need to be made. First, is civilization
worth saving; and second, does the US or Israel have
the guts to do what needs to be done to prevent a
new Dark Ages.


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By Wayne Allyn Root

Before I introduce myself and tell you about the most important decision of my political life, let me first cut to the chase. 
If Obama is re-elected on November 6th, you haven’t seen anything yet. Because the first Obama term was just  a small taste of things to come. Without ever having to answer to voters again, he will be free to be his REAL radical self. Without any need for restraint, Obama will throw caution to the wind, ignore Congress, and govern by Executive Order. He will be free to truly wreck this economy from sea to shining sea- just as Saul Alinsky, Cloward & Piven, Barack Obama Sr., Frank Marshall, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, Bill Ayers, and a host of other radical, Marxist, American-haters taught him.
Obama’s second term will unleash a final economic Armageddon- the total collapse of the U.S. economy and our financial system. The real unemployment rate we have today is in the 15% to 20% range. We will look back with envy at “the good old days.” Obama unleased will send the IRS to crush his political opposition. He will appoint a majority of Supreme Court and federal judges- so none of his violations of the Constitution will ever again be challenged. Perhaps worst of all, his politically correct policies in the Middle East will embolden radical Islamic and terrorist rogue states to attack and destroy Israel. And he will continue to weaken the U.S. military, so we will be unable to prevent it from happening.
If you don’t believe me, just look across the pond to Europe. They’ve been following Obama’s exact plan for decades. Their mantra was also big government, big unions, big spending, big taxes, big pensions, free healthcare, too many government employees, and green energy. The result? Economic disaster on a grand scale. Specifically Greece, Italy, and Spain are enduring a tragedy few can even comprehend. France is next. We will read about this someday in history books. America is following the exact same path under Obama.
Have I got your attention now?
Here’s my story. It has been a whirlwind last 5 years in my life. I started out my journey as the antithesis of a politician. As a small businessman, home-school dad, Las Vegas oddsmaker, and political newcomer running for the Libertarian Presidential nomination in 2007, you couldn’t find more of an anti-politician in all of politics.
But in America anything is possible. In this great country, never discount a long shot. I was elected the Libertarian Vice Presidential nominee in 2008. The Bob Barr/Wayne Root Presidential ticket went on to garner the second highest vote total in Libertarian history. I was then elected Chairman of the Libertarian National Campaign Committee, and became the #1 vote-getter in the country for election to the Libertarian National Committee. Media across the country called me “Mr. Libertarian” in my 4000 media appearances since 2008.
Today, after giving this many months of thought, I’m announcing the most important decision of my political career. I am stepping down from my roles in the Libertarian party, to endorse Mitt Romney as President of the United States, and to rejoin the Republican Party. 
Why? I’m a Capitalist Evangelist. I’m proud to be a small businessman. I love starting and running businesses. The issues that are of life and death importance to this country are the economy, creating jobs, lowering spending, lowering the debt and deficit, reducing taxes, and saving capitalism. Because if the economy collapses, or your personal economy collapses, what difference does any other issue matter? We need to get our fiscal house in order first, before we can deal with all the other problems. Without an economy, without jobs, nothing else matters. That’s why electing Mitt Romney is so important.
Under the Obama administration we have seen businessmen denigrated, demonized, punished, smothered by 60,000 new rules and regulations, threatened with massive new taxes, and attacked by the IRS. That’s why there are no jobs. That’s why, in my opinion, the economy is in freefall. That’s why America is facing economic collapse and disaster.
This election is NOT about Libertarian versus non-Libertarian. This election is about capitalism versus big government progressivism and Big Brother socialism. Mitt Romney believes in the same things I do- keeping businesses free from government intrusion, allowing small business owners to keep more of their own money, and rewarding instead of punishing investors, innovators, and job creators. Mitt understands, as President Calvin Coolidge once said, “The business of America is business.” 
Mitt understands that Obama’s rhetoric, constant threats against business, union favoritism, IRS intimidation, barrage of tax increases, 60,000 new rules and regulations, $5 trillion in new debt, the added taxes and regulations of Obamacare, and the attempt to ban oil drilling and regulate the coal industry out of existence, have collectively ground the U.S. economy to a halt. 
The sad reality is that this is our LAST STAND to save America. We will not survive four more years of Obama as CEO of this economy. I know my businesses will not survive another four years of Obama. The economy is in free-fall here on Main Street. Small business owners like me are seeing our entire life’s work melting away. Our children’s future is being destroyed before our very eyes.
The U.S. economy is like a very large and diverse failing company, in desperate need of a turnaround. What America needs at this moment in history is a job creator with major CEO experience…with specific business turnaround experience…a detailed understanding of economics…a creative and innovative business mind…and a track record of extraordinary success…to lead this country back from the edge of the fiscal cliff. That person is Mitt Romney. If he could pull off miracles with Staples (and dozens of companies like it)…and the 2002 Olympics (which he saved from an economic disaster similar to the situation America now faces)…he can turn this Obama bust into the Romney boom economy. 
As Clint Eastwood said, “We own this nation.” It’s time to take it back. Our businesses and jobs depend on it. The future of America and our children depends on it. Their quality of life is hanging in the balance. This is our last stand.
Do I agree with Mitt and the GOP on every issue? Of course not. No one ever agrees 100% on everything. But I’m willing to put my differences aside- to set an example- in order to take back our country from the grips of socialism and the abyss of economic ruin. There is no other choice. Our back is to the wall, and Obama’s defeat is that important to the survival of our country, our economy, our freedoms, our children’s future, and ultimately, capitalism itself.
It’s time for a coalition of Republicans, conservatives, Tea Party activists, Libertarians, Ron Paul supporters, small business owners, homeowners, investors, patriots, Christians, Jews, and Israel supporters to join together and support Mitt Romney now.

Is there still hope? Can this Obama nightmare be turned around? Look no further than Ronald Reagan. Reagan’s policies turned a Jimmy Carter economic disaster (similar to Obama’s) into the greatest and longest economic boom in world history- leading to the creation of over 45 million net jobs, over $60 trillion in private sector asset creation, and the greatest increase in GDP (Gross Domestic Product) in American history. Reagan’s “Great Bull Market” created more wealth for America’s families than any boom ever.
Finally, as important as the economy is, our interests in the Middle East have moved to the front and center. The Middle East is a powder keg about to explode on top of Israel and America’s interests. Obama’s world views are turning into disaster for America. Our long-time friendship with Israel is in tatters. The future existence of Israel is now at risk. Our Ambassador to Libya is dead- murdered by Muslims in a country where we helped put the rebels in power. Obama’s naive and dangerous views on U.S.-Muslim relations, the war on terror, and his terrible treatment of Israel have emboldened our enemies. It is leading to very bad news, at a time where Obama’s economic policies have left us broke, vulnerable, and even more dependent on oil from rogue states that hate America and support terrorism. 
Because of my general agreement with Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan on important economic issues…because of my love for our ally Israel and the terrible and dangerous way Obama has treated her…and because of my deep understanding of what Obama intends to do to this economy and this country in a 2nd term…I will do everything in my power to help elect Mitt Romney as the next President of the United States.
I believe Mitt Romney is our Reagan. And I am proud to once again call myself a Republican. God Bless America.
Wayne Allyn Root is a Tea Party Libertarian conservative, Capitalist Evangelist, and serial entrepreneur. He is a former Libertarian vice presidential nominee. He is the best-selling author of “The Conscience of a Libertarian: Empowering the Citizen Revolution with God, Guns, Gold & Tax Cuts.” His web site:


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By Michael E. Fournier, MBA.


Ron Paul defends the libertarian position of individual freedom from an individual as well as a national perspective.  Individual freedom makes sense as long as a society is living under the same set of laws; and those laws protect individual liberty equally for all citizens.  But what if the law protected the liberty of some individuals and not others?  Surely this can be compared to America before civil rights legislation.  Slaves had no acknowledged rights at all and after emancipation, blacks in the south had few rights.  In this sense it is clear that the individual liberty of white individuals was protected while that of blacks was not.  This same argument can be carried out to members of our society who feel themselves subjugated even today, users of marijuana for example.  These members of the society organize with like-minded citizens within the society to attempt to equalize their liberty with the rest of society. 

For a society to possess individual liberty it is clear that all members of that society must also possess the same rights of individual liberty as all the other citizens.  For any citizens who may be subjugated, not possessing the same amount of liberty as other members of the society, it becomes their mission to obtain the same amount of liberty as everyone else, whether this be by force, legislation or some other means.  So as civil rights has attempted to equalize the liberty of black citizens, also members of the society who use marijuana make their attempt at liberty as well.  Some would still hold that things are still not equal due to wealth, political favor, being members of powerful lobby groups (unions).

If a nation possesses some amount of liberty due to the laws of that nation, it does not hold that any nation as citizen of the world holds the same amount of liberty as any other nation and that we can get along with those nations simply by applying that assumption on a worldwide basis.

Nations hold certain amount of strengths as citizens of the world due to economic, military, alliances, and many other conditions.  Some nations, in this respect are subjugated citizens of other nation citizens simply due to these factors.  It is unlikely that all nations will hold the same beliefs at any point in time regarding the individual liberty of other nations.  In fact, we have many examples of nations throughout history attempting to subjugate other citizen nations.

The Romans, the British, the Nazis, and lately the Islamic nations believe that they are superior and rightfully subjugated other nations.  I am not attempting to say that the Nazis and British subjugated other nations for the same reasons, but they were able to exert their military, economic and other advantages over other nations of the world, subjugating those nations and the liberty of those nations as equal citizens of the world.

Just as a subjugated group within a nation takes matters into their own hands to equalize their liberty with other members of that society, nations who are citizens of the world must make the assumption that they are or will be subjugated at any time due to these same reasons and take the necessary steps to ensure that they have the liberties that they expect.  If China for example were to exert their economic muscle and subjugate the liberty of other nations’ citizens are we to sit by and be subjugated?  We probably would, like oppressed minorities within our own nation, take a stand to equalize our nation within the citizens of nations and again maximize the liberty of our nation compared to others.

For these reasons, it remains important to be ready, even though we may be a leader among nations at the moment and enjoying the amount of liberty that we allow ourselves.  Other nations are trying to not just equalize the situation but subjugate us and lessen our liberty.  Our own President also seems to believe that we have too much liberty in relation to other nations and is trying to lessen our liberty to equalize things.  So forces both internal and external to our nation are trying not only to equalize our liberty but to subjugate our own cherished liberty to other nations.  Not to prepare for this eventuality is naïve.



The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

 Editor’s Note: Please give a warm welcome to our newest member of The Libertarian Defense Caucus; Michael E. Fournier.

Libertarian Defense Caucus National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson and LNC Chair Mark Hinkle engaged in a fierce intellectual debate over libertarian foreign policy, reforming the LP, and a wide spectrum of other issues.

The LNC understands that the LDC is a potent force in the libertarian movement and must be directly engaged.

The Caucus wishes to express its gratitude to LNC Chair Hinkle for participating in the discussion.

The dialogue, between National Co – Chairman Bjornson and LNC Chair Hinkle follows, in slightly amended form, for editorial clarity.

(MH) indicates Mr. Hinkle’s responses. (K) indicates Mr. Bjornson’s responses.

MH) Believe it or not, we don’t have everyone’s email address. 
We only have them when members and supporters give them to us.

(K) The Obama 2012 campaign managed to amass a large collection
of e-addresses. Surely libertarians can do better. All membership
forms should include a request for e-address, and online membership
applications should require them. Charge extra for snail mail.

LP News should be available online at no charge.
There should be an opportunity to comment on what is posted.

(MH) It’s perfectly clear that LP members do disagree on
foreign policy and everything else.

(K) Most political disagreements relate to foreign policy.
We disagree on fact and ideology.

To a lesser extent, abortion. Almost all other disagreements
have to do with how radical or personality.

(MH) Why don’t you think that’s clear?

(K) Because you speak as if your position were self-evidently
the only libertarian position. As if no other could possibly be
consistent with the NAP. Surely, you’re not admitting here that
you realize yours is just one possible position, that you are
acting on behalf of that one faction and not the whole libertarian

[concerning online conventions]

(MH) That’s an intriguing idea.  …
However, there is the social aspect of meeting people at a
convention that would be missing in a wholly online meeting.

(K) We could still have educational conferences,
with speakers, training sessions, and fun activities.
The business of the party should not be limited to
those with a factional agenda and willing to spend
time and money to remake the party in their image.

(MH) But, the idea of some sort of online debate or
discussing regarding hot issues of the day, isn’t a bad one.

(K) We did have that, on the LP website.
However a former LP director eliminated that in the 2006 election
cycle, claiming he didn’t have time to moderate. However
they didn’t ask for volunteers who could have helped.

(MH) That’s interesting, because I see just the opposite. 
It’s the hawks that seem to be driving those that favor peace out of the LP.
Wayne Root is a prime example of a hawk that’s driving people away from
the LP.

(K) If what you say were true, then please explain why the chair
of the LP [you] appears to be a cheerleader for just one faction–
categorical non-interventionism. While Wayne has adopted a
moderate foreign policy, less hawkish than mine. I’m willing to
work with doves and foreign policy moderates, because I
realize a candidate reflecting my views might tilt the election
away from the lesser evil of the two major candidates. The LP
should selectively field either hawks or doves, depending on
circumstances and what we want to achieve.

Wayne did not receive a majority vote and non-interventionists
continue to drive hawks away by speaking as if theirs is the only
possible libertarian position. At the St. Louis convention,
I voted for Wayne, and when he lost, I voted for you, because
you presented yourself as a moderate who could smooth out
differences between factions. Alas, you disappoint.

(MH) BTW, perhaps you’d better define “libertarian hawks” for me. 
Frankly, the terms puzzles me.

(K) Here you imply, categorical non-interventionism is required
by the non-initiation-of-force principle. However, “intervention”
is not the same thing at all as “aggression”. Check standard
dictionaries and you will see how these words are defined
by literate people and society generally. As distinguished
from a special language invented by a small cult of historical/
philosophical/ideological illiterates.

(MH) Kevin, are you ignoring the fact that the U.S. through
out the duly elected leader of Iran and imposed a dictator,
the Shah of Iran?

(K) I am not a spokesperson for the US government,
past or present. I disagree with both your evaluation
of the alleged facts, as well as US policy.

In any event, you said Iran “has attacked no other country
in over 200 years.”. Now you are changing the topic.
I’m talking about what you said in your communique,
not what you are saying now in private. In what article
did you get that figure, 200 years? I ask, because another
anti-interventionist claimed that Iran had not attacked
anybody in 2000 years. [A bit difficult to do, since
the modern Iran government is not at all the same
government as the Persia of 200 or 2000 years ago.]

Surely, you are not sticking to your position,
that Iran has not committed any aggression at all?
Let us say, since the 1979 revolution, which created
the government we know as “Iran”.

(MH) I don’t teach, because I like working for myself. 
I like being my own boss.

(K) Your posture is that of a teacher, come to bring
knowledge and moral compass to the world.

(MH) …you have to be a democrat to get a teaching job in California.

And join a union that’s destroying the economy of California.

(K) Surely that would be a small obstacle for a man of your
scholarly achievements, who knows with such certainty what
Iran has done and not done in the last 200 years. Libertarian
scholar Jan Narveson has taught with me at liberty camps in the
former Soviet Union. He was able to teach at Stanford without
being a Democrat or joining the state union. Victor Davis Hanson
has also taught at Stanford without encountering those problems,
but from your comments you appear to have not read him.

(MH) I’m not sure what you mean by military isolationism,
but if you mean that soldiers should uphold their oath of office
to defend and protect the United States, then yes. I guess I’m a
military isolationist. 

(K) I see–so, yours is not just the only possible libertarian
foreign policy, it is also the only constitutional one? Wouldn’t
that make all other foreign policies illegal? What a solution to
the pesky foreign policy debate–put the hawks in jail!

(MH) You’re probably right [about EMP]. 
And you also probably know that Iran doesn’t have that capability.

(K) I see–so, the US should wait until Iran gets nukes to remove
their nuclear bomb capacity? Or should we just accept Iran getting

(MH) BTW, which nation is the only nation to use nuclear weapons
on civilian targets?

(K) First, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were military targets,
and taking them out saved millions of lives, American and
Japanese, that would have been lost in an invasion. Had
we not deposed the Japan regime, they would have acquired
nuclear weapons and many millions of Americans would
have died. Possibly neither of us would be here today,
if our parents had been incinerated.

Second, do you really suppose that Iran having nukes is
just as bad as the US having nukes? Do you really believe
that? Seriously?

I don’t favor the current system of weapons acquisition.
I accept that weapons are necessary in an imperfect world,
and expect to pay for them instead of hoping they will
miraculously materialize.

(MH) If the U.S. is attacked, I’m not a pacifist.

But, if it’s a nuclear threat that you think is the real threat,
how does have tens of thousands of foot soldiers in Iraq
and another 125 countries around the world help?

How about bring them home and defend the United States?

(K) I don’t favor US policy. That does not mean, I’m crazy
enough to have all US troops withdrawn to within US borders.
Because then, US defense costs would skyrocket, as we would
be forced into the position of passively defending every possible
target (civilian, political, and military) 100% of the time. Instead
of striking at enemy centers of power abroad, at a time and
place of our choosing.

(MH) Clearly, I and our founding fathers, who warned against
foreign entanglements, knew a little bit about foreign affairs.

(K) So now you are channeling the founding fathers?
OK, then please tune in to Thomas Jefferson, who created
the US deep water navy and intervened abroad to squelch
Barbary Coast pirates, who were taking US ships and
sailors hostage, holding them for ransom.

Kevin Bjornson
Libertarian Defens Caucus


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Governor Mitt Romney
Romney on GOP side; while also backing Gary Johnson as a Libertarian

By National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson

In regards to recent discussions of the Libertarian Defense Caucus endorsing in the GOP primary, I was thinking Mitt Romney might be the best bet. He is good on Israel.  He is more electable than Newt Gingrich; and if elected, more competent. 

I believe Romney’s support for Israel is sincere (probably because he identifies Jews as a persecuted minority like Mormons), and he has called for standing strong against Israel’s enemies.

Unfortunaely, both Gingrich and Romney oppose medical marijuana, but Gingrich really believes what he is saying and would radically escalate the War on Drugs; while Romney might change his position once elected and has not called for an escalation.

This is relevant to foreign policy, because the War on Drugs subsidizes Islamism through the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Gingrich has taken a number of Rockefeller positions and is left of center on domestic policy. His personality is not suited to management, and is prone to over-evaluate his intellectual abilities. Where he is wrong, he is strong; where he is right, he is weak. He is prone to harshly judge others for the same behavior to which he is prone.

Unfortunately there is no viable alternative to Romney for the GOP nominee.

Wayne Root told us at last summer’s Liberty Camp-Georgia that he would not run this year so that he does not take votes away from the GOP nominee. If Obama wins again, or the GOP candidate messes up, Wayne is open to running for the 2016 GOP nomination.

Since the Libertarian Defense Caucus is loosely affiliated with the Libertarian Party, 
I think we ought to also endorse Gary Johnson for the LP nomination. He won’t take many votes so isn’t likely to do much harm, while still representing the LP respectably. 

Kevin Bjornson lives in Seattle.  He joined the Society for Rational Individualism in 1968 and the Libertarian Caucus of YAF in 1969, and has served in numerous capacities in the Libertarian Party of Washington.  Currently he serves as co-chair of the Libertarian Defense Caucus.


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Those caucus members endorsing other presidential candidates, those members opposed to a Romney presidency, or those who are not endorsing any candidate, may compose their own piece and submit it to the caucus editorial board.

Posted by: irishhawk | December 19, 2011

A Revitalized and Refocused LP

By Scott Lieberman
Libertarian Party

As Morton Blackwell says  “You don’t win elections with your principles.  You win elections for your principles”.
This past weekend the Pragmatarian wing of the Libertarian National Committee did a good job of redirecting the priorities of the Libertarian Party in the direction of electing Libertarians to public office, as compared to our 40 year history of mostly macho flashing our way to 3% of the vote in Congressional elections.
Over the next 5 years, myself and a number of other Libertarian Party activists are going to try to elect as many Libertarians as possible to local, mostly non-partisan offices.  We will be using our State Legislature and Congressional candidates as RINO killers in general elections.
  Scott Lieberman is a distinguished Regional Alternate,  Libertarian National Committee ( California ). He is also a distinguished member of The Libertarian Defense Caucus.

The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Posted by: irishhawk | August 9, 2011

Justice is Universal, not Relative.

By LDC National Co – Chairman Kevin Bjornson

“Terrorism” is the deliberate targeting of civilians for political purposes.
Terrorism is always unjustified, no matter what the purpose or political goal.

Yet the Norwegian government justifies terrorism against
Israelis, while not wanting to be on the receiving end.

 “Collateral damage” means, civilians who are inadvertantly killed or hurt
because they are in the vicinity of a war target. Collateral damage is inevitable in any armed conflict, whether invasion, defense against invasion, or rebellion.

Western militaries generally do not target civilians. During WWII, cities with military value were targeted, and many civilians died.

Though that technique has been out of favor for many years,
and collateral damage has decreased over the years as targeting and technology have improved.

Americans during the Revolutionary War did not target British
civilians or Americans with Tory sympathies. After the war,
there was no inquisition of Tories. In contrast, the French
Revolution did have a reign of terror after the monarchy
was overthrown. Edmund Burke, the father of modern
conservative libertarianism, supported the American but
denounced the French revolution.

Burke’s “Vindication of Natural Society” was an anthem
for humanism and liberty, pointing out that the two are
mutually reinforcing. As Burke pointed out, most wars in history were triggered by religious differences. Later, Ayn Rand pointed out (in Faith and Force: Destroyers of the Modern World),that faith and force are mutually reinforcing and natural allies.

The Christian Crusaders, whom Anders (in his video) held up as role models, were Christian terrorists. They sacked Constantinople,enabling the later conquest by Muslims; and attacked non-Christians generally, without regard to their individual guilt or innocence.

Fortunately the Renaissance and Enlightenment have moderated
Christian terrorism; unfortunately a similar process has not
occurred in Islam.

Later, Burke did seem to presage Austrian economics in his
deference to the utility of tradition. Such traditions have evolutionary value, and no one person or small group may safely overthrow the habits of thought and action that developed over centuries.

The inevitably of collateral damage does provide empirical
support to this caution against radical or revolutionary change brought about at bayonet point. Most governments exhibit a degree of aggression, from tax theft to over regulation to outright campaigns of extermination. Resources are limited, and human nature is similarly limited. The harm caused by any particular government ought to be weighed against the harm caused by invasion or revolution.

The bizarre case of Anders Breivik does raise the question,
are the evils of the Norwegian govenrment sufficient
to warrant revolution? And if yes, what type of revolution?

Anders was allegedly vexed over Muslim immigration and
multi-culturalism in Norway. Of course, in Saudi Arabia
and most parts of Dar al-Islam, there is no such multi-culturalism.

Rather, there is Islamic mono-culture. So, to favor multiculturalism in areas where Islam is not dominant, while tolerating mono- culturalism where Islam is dominant, creates a one-way ratchet.

Once an area has been conquered by Islam, it can never change course.

While in areas not yet conquered by Islam, non-Islamic culture dies by
a thousand cuts–induced by high rates of Muslim-on-infidel aggression, including welfarism, theft, rape, assault, and murder. Which explains how previously non-Islamic Egypt, Syria, Turkey, etc., now have (close to) Islamic mono-culture.

Just to give you a taste of what Norwegians are forced to deal with, about 80% of all rapes and virtually 100% of stranger-rapes there are Muslim-on-infidel. Muslim immigrants tend to not assimilate, and social costs in education, health, and welfare are much higher than for natives.

There are some restrictions on free speech in Norway,
but if you’re careful, you can still criticize Islam. The Wilders trial in Holland seemed to draw a line, you can criticize Islam but not Muslims as a group.

Norway is generally free, relative to the rest of the world.
In any event, disgruntled Norwegians are free to migrate to
Iceland, as a few brave Norwegians did 1000 years ago. 
So no, revolution in Norway is not justified. Even if it were, that still does not justify the massacre of teenagers at a Labor party political training camp. Those students have not yet committed aggression, and not all will do so.

Similarly, Anders’  car bomb outside the Prime Minister’s
office caused death and injury to nearby civilians and and
destruction of their property. The greater the collateral damage, the higher the bar ought to be before revolution can be justified.

If Anders had limited his direct action to a few government
officials directly tied to aggression, there wouldn’t have
been such an outcry. Confronting them on the street,
one-on-one, wouldn’t have been very difficult.

So much for the ostensible motivations for Anders’ terrorism. Now let us examine his real motivations.

A few have noted the apparent inconsistency of justifying an
attack on mostly native Norwegians, by criticism of Muslims.
True, the Labor party is pandering to Muslims by allowing
them to immigrate in large numbers, and subsidizing them to court their votes. That the Labor party was his primary target,does seem to belie his alleged focus on Muslims.

Both Anders’ parents were staunch Labor party members.
His father actually worked for Labor governments,
as an economic analyst in their embassies. His father
left the home at Anders’ age one. This means, Anders
parents were not good role models for a successful
male-female bonding and stable family life.

Anders had no success getting girlfriends, despite his
good looks and ability to raise substantial sums of money.
Like some other “martyrs” about to die, he hired call-girls 
shortly before his attacks.

He even mused about self-castration, in order to prove
bona fides to Al Qaeda, from whom  he would obtain
WMD with which to attack Norwegians. Getting help
from Jihadists to slaughter infidels, is not what counter-
Jihadism is about.

His use of steroids and posing in a Seals-type outfit,
complete with machine gun, does seem over-the-top macho.

Anders imagines the good that Hitler would have done,
had he not been anti-Jewish. Anders praises various
neo-nazi groups, some of whom have de-emphasized
their traditional anti-Jewishness. That’s an easy switch to make, 
now that 6 million European Jews have been eliminated.

Anders main resentment is against the Labor party.
His purported ideological justifications don’t add up.

Anders misquoted J. S. Mill, which indicates he got the
quote from a “famous quotes” website and not from actually reading On Liberty. He claims to like pro-industrial Ayn Rand, but plagiarizes from the Unabomber’s anti-industrial manifesto. He endorses both the Christian Crusaders and firmly atheistic Rand; selfless martyrdom, but also anti-altruistic Rand. And so on.

His anti-Jihadism is another mask, like his Freemason
outfit and his police uniform. He didn’t graduate from college,but claims college degree equivalency through self-study. His sexual and intellectual insecurities have led him to cover up his own inadaquecy in those departments.

Just as policemen should not be maligned because
Anders wore their uniform, neither should libertarians
or anti-Jihadists feel he is one of us. 


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By Libertarian Defense Caucus Special Columnist Wayne Allen Root.

Our Friend John Hospers Passes Away

I have sad news to report…John Hospers, the very first Libertarian Presidential candidate in 1972, has passed away. John was 93. Because of our close friendship, I was asked to announce his death to the LP and his many fans and supporters.
John passed quietly away in his sleep, on Sunday morning June 12 without pain and suffering, of natural causes. He died only 3 days after his 93rd birthday.

He was a true friend of individual liberty and freedom.

A sad day for all. But a devastatingly sad for me, because John was a true friend to me as well. I spoke to John often. He was a trusted political advisor and confidant. And in his last years, when he was in the hospital, his friends always asked if I could cheer him up with a call. I came to enjoy those calls. John was my personal “Tuesday with Morrie.”

He was the sweetest man alive, and a very loyal friend of mine. He will be greatly missed by all. The Libertarian movement has lost a pioneer and hero.

I send my condolences to the Hospers family.

And I wish a lifetime in heaven for John.

God Bless,
Wayne Allyn Root


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

By Kevin Bjornson.

The principles of natural justice (Jus Naturale) are discoverable through
conscience and reason. This natural law applies to all natural persons,
in all places and for all time. The world will choose between natural
law and sharia law.

We know through observation that all existing governments are flawed.
Created to protect rights, these guard dogs often revert to wolf-like
behavior, stealing from and assaulting those they are supposed to
protect. This means, all existing governments should be reformed
or replaced. Yet there are not enough resources to do all that needs
to be done, all at once.

Not all governments are equivalent. Some are worse than others.
Governments that are reforming toward freedom, should be applauded,
rather than overthrown. Governments that are most threatening,
should be top of the list for abolition.

Bad people who reform, should be applauded for their good actions.
If instead they were punished for not coming close enough to good,
that would tend to push them away, back toward evil.

Gadhafii decided to dismantle his nuclear weapons program after
he saw Bush depose Saddam over that very issue (among other
issues). He also paid blood money to atone for his previous
terrorism. One of his sons even studied Austrian economics.
These kinds of good actions earn him respect and a seat at the
table of nations, with diplomatic relations and trade.

In contrast, the mad mullahs of Iran, after a temporary pause
about the same time (after the Iraq invasion), are proceeding at
full speed in pursuit of nuclear weapons. The Iran government
is more powerful than Gadhaffi’s, and currently supports an
extensive network of terrorists, including agents helping to
kill American soldiers in Iraq.

The crazy dicatator of N. Korea kills millions of his own
people in a government-induced famine, due to their extreme
communism and international isolation. Yet we bargain with
them, to give them more aid.

The Islamist regime in Pakistan presides over a holocaust
of non-Muslims, expands it’s nuclear arsenal, imprisons an
American who resists an armed assault, and continues turning
a blind eye to (or even supporting) terrorists in Afghanistan
and Kashmir. Yet they still receive US aid.

The message this sends is, if you’re anti-American enough
and powerful enough, you get a pass. If you reform and try
to work with the west, and you’re not very strong militarily,
you will be deposed by the west.

Whatever is rewarded, we will tend to see more of.
Whatever is punished, we will tend to see less of.
The end result in Libya and Egypt will be sharia law and
dictatorship of the Muslim Brotherhood. The result in
Iran and N. Korea will be more of the same. Trust and
belief in America are plumetting, our enemies are

There is something wrong with this picture.

Kevin Bjornson is the National Co – Chairman of The Libertarian Defense Caucus. He is considered one of the foremost libertarian intellectuals in the nation.


The views, opinions, positions or strategies expressed by the author and those providing comments are theirs alone, and do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, positions, policies, or strategies of The Libertarian Defense Caucus or any individual Caucus member thereof.

Older Posts »



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.